- From: Libby Miller <libby@asemantics.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:43:33 -0800 (PST)
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- cc: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> * Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> [2006-02-14 09:13+0100]
> >
> > SWBPD VM 2006-02-14 telecon agenda
> >
> > Tuesday, 15:00 UTC (16:00 Berlin)
>
> Likely regrets (other commitments)
and regrets from me, sorry.
Libby
>
> Dan
>
> > http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060214
> > Zakim: +1-617-761-6200
> > Conference code 8683# ('VMTF')
> > irc://irc.w3.org:6665/vmtf
> >
> > Recent telecons
> > -- 2006-01-24: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0125.html
> > -- 2006-02-01: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0028.html
> > -- 2006-02-07: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0056.html
> >
> > Next telecons (weekly)
> > -- 2005-02-21 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060221
> >
> > Regrets: Alistair
> >
> > AGENDA
> >
> > -- Current draft ("cookbook") is
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
> >
> > -- Confirm process (as of BPD telecon of Feb 6) for publishing
> > cookbook as a Working Draft -- see [1], appended as text below.
> >
> > -- Outstanding technical issues? (See "recent telecons", above)
> >
> > -- Any new text to add? (See below)
> >
> > -- Testing
> > ACTION: Ralph to test recipes with W3C configuration.
> >
> > -- Frequency of VM telecons
> > Once Working Draft is out, chair proposes we hold conferences every
> > second week for awhile (instead of weekly).
> >
> > -- Longer-term issue: alignment of content-negotiation ideas
> > in the cookbook with TAG:
> > -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
> > -- Associating Resources with Namespaces
> > Draft TAG Finding 13 December 2005
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2005-12-13/
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0049.html
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > SWBPD VM 2006-02-06 Task force update
> >
> > The Vocabulary Management Task Force would like to propose
> > "Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies"
> > [1] for publication as a Working Draft.
> >
> > In recent VM telecons [2], we have been discussing the reviews
> > provided by David Booth and Andreas Harth. We would like
> > to ask David and Andreas now to look at our notes (below)
> > and let us know if they agree with our request to publish a
> > Working Draft.
> >
> > We just discussed this request on the Feb 6 SWBPD telecon
> > and agreed on the following timetable:
> >
> > -- David Booth would like to propose some words on how to select
> > which type of URI to use. We have asked him to provide this
> > before the VM telecon of Feb 14.
> >
> > -- Next VM telecons are on Feb 7 and Feb 14 [3].
> >
> > -- Having heard back from David and Andreas and received text
> > from David, by Feb 17 we post a proposal to the list to
> > publish as a Working Draft.
> >
> > -- In the Feb 20 telecon, SWBPD takes a decision.
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
> > [2] Recent telecons
> > 2006-01-24: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0125.html
> > 2006-01-31: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0180.html
> > [3] Next telecons (weekly)
> > 2005-02-07 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060207
> > 2005-02-14 Tue 1500 UTC http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20060214
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Responses to reviews
> >
> > -- David Booth review
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0124.html
> > -- Global suggestions
> > G1. To discuss trade-offs between hash and slash URIs
> > Response: Ralph has addressed this with added text in the
> > introduction. David has not yet indicated whether he is
> > satisfied.
> >
> > G2. To avoid purl.org recipes, which violate TAG resolution
> > with 302 redirect code.
> >
> > Problem with purl.org: It is not enough to change all 302s to
> > 303s because 302 is appropriate for most URIs. So the purl.org
> > maintainers would have to implement a feature for users to
> > specify that some resource is a non-information resource.
> > This would require changes to the database. Are there any
> > options to do a double redirection? I.e. if purl returns a
> > 302 redirect, then my own server does a 303. On Jan 17, decided
> > to clarify with TAG whether inferences are supposed to be made
> > already on the initial response code.
> >
> > ACTION (DONE Jan 17): Alistair drafted the question (i.e., that only the
> > initial response code matters) for discussion in BPD, then to send to TAG:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0076.html
> > This draft note to TAG
> > -- suggests they coin a URI for class "resource"
> > (tag:informationResource) so that things like rdfs:Class,
> > owl:Class, and rdf:Property could be declared disjoint with it.
> > -- requests clarification on what implication one can draw when
> > 303 is returned as opposed to 200 ("X is a tag:infoResource").
> >
> > (Note: In follow-up, David Booth suggested
> > a draft "HTTP URI-Identity-Algorithm",
> > out of scope for the VM TF per se:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0116.html
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0165.html)
> >
> > ACTION - DONE: Alistair put the purl.org material into an Appendix.
> >
> > -- Specific recipes
> > Recipe 3. Interpretation of a fragment identifier in the
> > presence of 303 redirects is unclear, so recipe
> > should note that browser may or may not apply
> > fragment identifier to secondary URI.
> >
> > -- Editorial suggestions
> > E1. Shorter URIs in the examples would be better.
> > Alistair would rather leave the longer URIs for now because
> > a UK server is configured to support them, see
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0034.html.
> > Ralph suggests using w3c URIs in the final version (with
> > shorter URIs for the examples).
> >
> > E2. At the beginning of each recipe, say what the URIs would return.
> >
> > Alistair proposes to illustrate this graphically, so added images
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0034.html.
> > David Booth actually intended simply to spell out which URIs
> > are redirected to. Ralph wonders whether the images really add any
> > new information.
> >
> > On Jan 18, Alistair reorganized recipes 1 and
> > 2, adding short description of outcomes as
> > per Booth suggestion. Added examples with
> > expected outcomes for purpose of testing.
> > Wants to organize the rest like this when
> > IE6 bug resolved.
> >
> > -- Andreas Harth review
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0004.html
> > -- The document has too many choices - suggests
> > cutting down to 3 or 4 covering 80% of the cases.
> > -- Suggests content negotiation instead of mod_rewrite
> > modules. Response at:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0016.html
> > -- Suggests mod_alias instead of mod_rewrite.
> > -- Maybe put purl.org examples into an appendix.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Thomas Baker baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
> > SUB - Goettingen State +49-551-39-3883
> > and University Library +49-30-8109-9027
> > Papendiek 14, 37073 G?ttingen
> >
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 12:43:54 UTC